Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

2,030 Superb

About Phoenix_jz

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Birthday 02/02/1999
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Ammiraglio di 1° Divisione Incrociatori Pesanti
    -Italian Heavy Cruiser Ace-
    -Punk Rocker-

Recent Profile Visitors

2,588 profile views
  1. Ah, I see. That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. I was curious if they had any clear idea of how much heavier the shell was going to be, or something like that. Then again, the entry for the 16" Mk.IV left it pretty open-ended about how heavy the round might be, so it would make sense if they didn't have a clear idea about the increase in mass of the new shell that would've been used in a 16.5" gun.
  2. I just went checking through my copy of Campbell's, I couldn't find any mentions of the 16.5" guns - the last development of heavy guns I could find was the 16"/45 Mk.IV, but no mentions of 16.5" guns in any of the 16" articles. So my guess is it was one of the other sources you mentioned. Still, interesting to hear about. Any recollection of what the specs for it were going to be? The one in game just features a heavier shell but otherwise identical, which is quite curious because it actually has almost the exact same velocities and angles of impact as the the 406mm gun at any given range (variation is tiny).
  3. I was thinking more in terms of information available to work with. Many archives have only opened up in the last few decades, or at least to greater degrees, and more information is available on many ships and their equipment, especially with more research done for books like Bagnasco's book on the Littorio-class, or the excellent series of books on French Battleships, cruisers, and destroyers John Jordan did with Robert Dumas (Battleships) and Jean Moulin (cruisers and destroyers).
  4. Tillman's, based on what I've seen if them. Many seem to be monsters - but, of course, it depends on what version you discuss. As for the H-series, they just weren't that... Great. H-39's armor was inferior in some ways to Bismarck's, but it had 406mm guns. H-41 had better armor, but nothing extraordinary iirc - but 420mm guns, albeit still only 8. H-41 was the last design however. H-42 and beyond are just ideas, not even schematics, and really can't be compared to ships that were actually properly studied like many of the Tillman's.
  5. This I can't disagree with - Navweaps does definitely have a slant towards the USN. However, in some cases Navweaps does have more up-to-date or extensive figures than Campbell's, due to Campbell's being limited by just being old and not really being able to update itself in the same way Navweaps can.
  6. Defeat in detail. The German fleet is in the North Sea. They're isolated, so if the two Scharnhorsts set sail with accompanying cruisers and destroyers... well, the Home Fleet will probably meet and defeat them on their own own the North Sea. No matter what, you can consider it a guarantee that a German fleet is not making it to link up with an Axis fleet in the Mediterranean or even the Atlantic. In the Mediterranean, realistically in 1940 we're probably talking the summer, so somewhere between June and August. In that case, Italy only has Cavour and Cesare active as far as battleships go. In that case, you're left with the Punta Stilo/Calabria problem. Sure, Campioni and Paladini might be willing to seek action even against a superior force (2 Cavour's vs 2 QE's & 1 Revenge) - but that only lasted so long as it was thought safe to engage, as with the advantage of speed it gave them superior maneuvering ability, which is exactly what the exploited during the Battle of Punta Stilo in order to avoid facing three battleships at once. Once Cesare got hit (and Campioni was not sure how bad the damage was, only that she was forced to slow to 18 knots initially), the game was up, and Campioni disengaged with the battleships - they simply lacked the armor to stand up and fight the British 15" battleships on even terms, regardless of their speed and firepower. 2v3 was doubtful, 1v3 was suicide. If the British come to play with one of their battlecruisers or a KGV? Yeah, no. There's no way Campioni, or any other sane commander is bringing the two Cavour's against those unless it's a 2v1 at a minimum. As for France, if we're talking Vichy France, it entirely depends on how the fleet behaves after the armistice. The forces in Alexandria are seized for sure (battleship Lorraine, heavy cruisers Suffern, Duquesne, Tourville, light cruiser Duguay-Trouin). That leaves French major warships in the Med as; Battleships: Dunkerque (Dunkerque-class) Strasbourg (Dunkerque-class) Bretagne (Bretagne-class) Provence (Bretagne-class) Heavy Cruisers Algérie (unique) Suffern-class x3 Light Cruisers La Galissonniére-class x6 Plus numerous contre-torpilleurs and regular destroyers. Richelieu and Jean Bart, still not complete, and trapped in the Atlantic and can do nothing. They won't be finished for sure because of British bombing. Assuming all the ships in North Africa run to Toulon before the British can do a Catapult on them, that's what they'll have to fight with. If any unified Axis command exists (it does not - the Axis were terrible at co-operation with each other), they'd know their best bet is to wait until 1941 when all six completed Italian battleships are fully worked up and ready for action. The Bretagne's are useless - their speed is only good for 20 knots, dragging down the whole fleet, their armor is poor, and their guns are anemic as hell - incapable of penetrating the Belt of a Queen Elizabeth or Revenge unless within 5000 yards of them. They'd best be left at home. Their loss won't be missed - a join Italo-Vichy fleet at the start of 1941 (Assuming the British are more cautious and don't pull a Taranto because of the increased threat in the Med) would feature a force centered on the two Littorio-class battleships, backed up but the two Dunkerque's - not as well armored, but just as fast and with powerful (but inaccurate) 13" guns, and the four Italian rebuilds, with their still good speed (26 and 27 knots for the two classes) and decent armament of ten 12.6" guns, but poor armor like the Dunkerque's. That's two full-sized fast battleships, and six small, but fast battleships. In terms of heavy cruisers, there are eleven. Algérie and the four Zara-class are powerful assets, better armored than anything the British have, and while Bolzano, the two Trento's, and the three Suffern's aren't well armored, they're still just about as well armed and are just as fast as the British cruisers. Their armor is better in some cases. There are also twelve full light cruisers in this armada, eight (La Gali's and the Abruzzi) of comparable ability while the Montecuccoli and d'Aosta aren't as well armed or armored, but are incredibly fast, easily able to keep up with or overtake the destroyers in use by the two Latin Navies. The Giussano and Cadorna-class have much less combat value than any of these, but are still considerable threats to destroyers. In terms of destroyers - well, they have plenty, and many with be the large French contre-torpilleurs, which the British would have a hard time gathering. In the face of such a threat, the British would certainly have to wait to accurate a large, powerful force before challenging a fleet of such a size, or go for defeat-in-detail tactics with many operations at once. Either that, or they just decide to abandon the Mediterranean as a whole and let the Axis stew in their lake. I doubt they'd force a decisive action in the Mediterranean, however. It just plays to Axis advantage too much, and would not be rational. If they insisted on action in the summer of 1940 - they're fools. The Bretagne's should be left behind - those things are relics and have negligible combat ability - even the belt of a Zara could resist their shells at 22000 yards and beyond. That gives you effective battleline as two Dunkerque's and two Cavour's, with eleven heavy cruisers and twelve (technically eighteen) light cruisers in support. The Royal Navy's battleships and cruisers are numerous enough to counter this - although it would take a lot of effort. However, they could do it, and their battlecruisers, while vulnerable to the fire of the Axis battleships (Hood less so), are also easily capable of punching them to an even greater degree with their 15" guns, while being just as fast.
  7. Upbote for more MAYR! Example number six-hundred and sixty-six of how much of a massive c*ck-up WG's attempt at representing Duca degli Abruzzi in-game...
  8. That's a fair point, although generally speaking we usually compare penetration against EFF penetration, as we know the shell is going to explode in that condition and is in working order, whereas the Holing Limit does not guarantee this (only complete penetration of shell body - and shells in game don't break up at all unless they 'shatter', i.e., just fail to penetrate outright). Likewise, EFF also lets us compare many more guns as many guns in those tables have no Holing or Naval limit penetration listed. Ex, using EFF; AP Mk.21 mod.5 In-Game British CA Japanese VH 6000 yards/5.5 km 353.4mm 297.2mm 330.2mm 10000 yards/9.1 km 280.9mm 236.2mm 264.2mm 16000 yards/14.6 km 203.4mm 167.6mm 188.0mm 20000 yards/18.3 km 172.9mm 139.7mm 154.9mm AP Mk.21 mod.1-4 In-Game British CA Japanese VH 6000 yards/5.5 km 353.4mm 279.4mm 309.9mm 10000 yards/9.1 km 280.9mm 221.0mm 246.4mm 16000 yards/14.6 km 203.4mm 157.5mm 175.3mm 20000 yards/18.3 km 172.9mm 129.5mm 144.8mm APC L/4,4 In-Game British CA Japanese VH 6000 yards/5.5 km 319.0mm 348.0mm 386.1mm 10000 yards/9.1 km 252.3mm 274.3mm 304.8mm 16000 yards/14.6 km 179.5mm 188.0mm 210.8mm 20000 yards/18.3 km 148.2mm 149.9mm 165.1mm AP Type 91 In-Game British CA Japanese VH 6000 yards/5.5 km 286.6mm 287.0mm 320.0mm 10000 yards/9.1 km 220.6mm 218.4mm 243.8mm 16000 yards/14.6 km 152.2mm 147.3mm 165.1mm 20000 yards/18.3 km 126.4mm 127.0mm 139.7mm AP Mk.19 mod.4-6 In-Game British CA Japanese VH 6000 yards/5.5 km 322.7mm 299.7mm 335.3mm 10000 yards/9.1 km 247.3mm 233.7mm 259.1mm 16000 yards/14.6 km 169.5mm 160.0mm 177.8mm 20000 yards/18.3 km 140.3mm 124.5mm 139.7mm AP Mk.19 mod.1-3 In-Game British CA Japanese VH 6000 yards/5.5 km 322.7mm 294.6mm 327.7mm 10000 yards/9.1 km 247.3mm 228.6mm 254.0mm 16000 yards/14.6 km 169.5mm 154.9mm 172.7mm 20000 yards/18.3 km 140.3mm 121.9mm 137.2mm Which gives us, for the average ratios of In-Game (IG) penetration divided by EFF figures; AP Types Ratio IG/CA Ratio IG/VH APC L/4,4 0.9450 0.8508 AP Type 91 1.0093 0.9068 AP Mk.19 mod.1-3 1.1056 0.9906 AP Mk.19 mod.4-6 1.0803 0.9693 AP Mk.21 mod.1-4 1.2906 1.1587 AP Mk.21 mod.5 1.2074 1.0829 Due to the very poor qualities of Japanese VH armor, it's pretty common to see EFF penetration against said armor exceed even they typically higher In-Game values, but otherwise among most calibers compared to thicknesses of other cemented/FH types (excluding Class A against battleship-caliber shells, which due to the scaling factor performs about as poorly against them as Japanese VH). usually see ratios of .95 to .85. American 8" AP, however, is pretty much always over 1.0. This is what makes them very suspicious, on top of the extraordinarily high Krupp values uncommon across all calibers and extreme outliers among 203mm guns. Likewise, when you compare tables of in-game penetration you see very curious results, such as the USN 8"/55 Mk.14's AP having penetration very similar to the German 203mm AP (in fact, superior within 7.5 km), when it very much should not have such comparable penetration. Likewise, it outperforms Japanese 203mm AP by a wide margin while in reality their performance was almost identical. USN 8" SHS is head-and shoulders above the German 203mm in penetration in-game. The reality was the opposite - the belt penetration of the German APC L/4,4 was outright superior to even the AP Mk.21 mod.5 until 26000 yards (23.77 km). In fact, the Mk.21 AP in game has a significantly greater improvement in performance over the Mk.19 than it did in reality. The improved angles for 45-60º only affects chance to ricochet - that's where shells start normally having a chance to autobounce, and 60º is where they autobounce for sure unless they overmatch the amor. For USN cruisers, all these does is guarantee shells don't autobounce below 60º angles. That part along helps in consistency, but by no means would it suddenly enable citadels to occur at these angles where before they would not. USN 8" angles will only help in making sure shells don't auto bounce against armor pieces angled at greater than 60º - at which point armor pieces are over twice as thick as their nominal value in effective thickness. If you're in a fight at torpedo range (5 km and less)... well, let's put it like this. The 6"/47 has about 200mm of penetration at this range. That's only enough to get past a 100mm belt at 60º. Anything more in terms of angle, and the shells will simply fail to penetrate the armor. With a 67.5º angle, you can just penetrate a 76mm belt. At 4 km these figures rise to 109mm and 84mm, and at 3 km these are 118mm and 90mm. Against most cruisers... there's really just not much benefit. Your 6" shell simply lack the penetration for this to be useful against most ships beyond tier VI, with the exception of some poorly armored Soviet light cruisers - and this is just getting past the main belt. If they have turtleback like the German cruisers, than you're boned. Worcester, despite having better AP, will have the same issue, even worse probably, due to the better armor at tier VIII-X. The extra range of non-autobounce simply fails to be useful because of the sheer lack of penetration. If Worcester's AP struggles against anything mildly angled, than increasing the auto-bounce angles will do nothing to save her AP, as unless those angles are 45º or more, the struggling is simply down to raw penetration.
  9. Battleships firing from the Bow?

    *Double Post* - mod pls delete?
  10. Battleships firing from the Bow?

    Littorio did the same, in fact, at 2nd Sirte. Her last salvo was from her aft turret, and set her floatplane on fire, as well as dropping a 381mm shell next to the destroyer Lively causing splinter damage
  11. This is correct, but keep in mind Krupp is WG's 'Fudge' factor. This is what they use to massage penetration curves to better match them to where they should be beyond what the formula usually gives - in many cases the penetrative ability of a shell is influenced significantly by other factors, such as the cap behavior. This is why you have, for example, old WWI AP having really low Krupp - this reflects the poor penetration they had, usually the result of older or just poor cap designs (like the 6" secondaries used on older Japanese BBs). In some cases, they actually use it to buff shell performance well beyond what it should be - examples being American 8" guns, Japanese 14" and 16.1" guns (WWII ammunition at least), and the French 340mm guns (where the penetration is literally doubled from where it was in reality). The fact Krupp gets 'normalized' against 2400 only reflects on the ratio that it creates (krupp/2400) which is used to modify the formula's constant. 2400 does nothing to it, while 2399 or lesser lowers the constant, and 2401 and above increases it (and thus penetration). While Krupp can vary greatly based on era and nation, usually 6" guns tend to have sub-2400 Krupp, while 8" guns have values above 2400. In this case, American 6" AP has excellent Krupp for it's value, as the list below shows. As for Worcester's Krupp value, that's the assumption I'm working on. The USN modified all of it's shells over the course of the war to improve performance to varying levels of success. Amount the Mk.8 round for the 16" guns, the Mod.6 shells that went into service in 1944 were such an improvement over the earlier ones, the Bureau of Ordinance ordered all of the new battleships to swap out their ammunition load as soon as possible. For the Mk.35 6" shell, they used the Mod.1 through 8 until 1943, when the Mod.9 became available, with the shell cap being superior (but taking up more of the shell's overall weight, it seems. The body weight of the Mk.35 dropped from 48.49 kg to 45.45 kg).The only difference in the shells used by all other USN CLs with the Mk.35 and Worcester seems to be the fact Worcester's have the '130 lb' weight in their name, which is rather curious. Gun Krupp 6"/47DP Mk.16 2692 6"/50 Mk.XXVI 2672 6"/50 Mk.XXIII 2609 6"/47 Mk.16 2445 15.5cm/60 3rd Year Type 2429 152mm/55 Mle 1930 2225 152mm/57 MK-5 2216 152/53 OTO 1929 2142 15cm/60 SK C/25 1862 The Krupp rating might seem unremarkable, but for a 6" gun it's actually quite decent (keep in mind, these are all modern 6" guns on this. I can dip into plenty of WWI-era guns with sub-2000 Krupp values). Keep in mind with the exception of the WWII-era RN CL 6" AP, all the Krupp values greater than the American 6"/47 are all exclusively tier IX-X ordinance (the ones in green text). And I'd be careful with calling the penetration as a whole unremarkable. The Soviet 152mm and Japanese 155mm guns are two of the most powerful (in terms of ballistics) guns of their caliber you'll find. The fact the 6"/47 competes with these guns despite it's conservative ballistics makes it a very good gun in that respect. Infact, that Krupp is not far behind most 8" Krupp values - with the exception of the American 8" guns, but those are very significantly buffed and overperform compared to where they should be. In what way do those citadel hits occur? Via bow and stern? I really don't think it would have the outcome desired, and only brings in a host of other issues, as that would completely overshadow the performance of British 6" AP - while having access to HE. Remember, that's why ships tend to get those improvements - compensation for their other ammunition. The British lack HE entirely, hence their special SAP. The USN CA's got it as part of the originally cruiser line 'flavor' dynamic of the Japanese and Americans - HE and torpedo focused Japan versus AP and AA focused America. If the USN CLs are anything like Cleveland, they won't have a need of close-range torpedoes. Any cruiser that comes close for a torpedo run will simply be ripped to shreds by rapid-fire AP, and against battleships... well, better ricochet angles aren't going to compensate you for that int he first place.
  12. Mediocre krupp? The Krupp value of the normal American 6"/47's AP is second only to that of British 6" AP, and one of only four 6" AP types that are above 2400 Krupp. In fact, the Worcester has a later model of AP that has the best Krupp value of 6" guns bar none. Because their AP is heavy, it actually compares very well in penetration too other 6" guns - the only ones with more penetration are the heavy and high MV 155mm and 152mm guns of the Mogami and Soviet light cruisers (barring Worcester's guns, which actually have more penetration than these guns). This combined with thicker armor and lower citadels than the Soviet, and British CLs give a significant advantage to their durability - there's a reason that British CLs need smoke and heals, and why Soviet cruisers hang at range. And as @mofton pointed out, improved autobounce angles for 6" guns generally does not help it penetrate heavy armor in the same way it does for the American 8" AP, as 6" AP simply lacks the punching power to take advantage of it. it only helps penetrate the extremity armor you'd normally use HE on - this is why the British CLs have this ability. Otherwise, they would have a very hard time hurting battleships and destroyers.
  13. german H series battleships

    About 2.2x faster, but to be fair in this case that's less the weapon's firing cycle, and more the limitations of the gun mount. By the same notion French and German 8" guns shouldn't make more than 4 rpm as neither could reach 4-5 rpm in practical conditions. Guns like the American 8"/55 (all versions) are more of an interesting point because they physically couldn't make many if the figures given to them - sort of like Aoba's guns - even disregarding the fact the class could only manage 3 rpm because if what the house could manage, the guns couldn't do higher than 4 rpm. Dispersion was most likey different issues for the two guns, however, the barrel wear seems to be in line with the difference in energies. The 381/50 had an effective barrel life of 140 rounds, for acceptable degredation of ballistic quality, but I've seen sources state the ultimate useful limit was 220 rounds - however I suspect that might have to do with how much barrel wear is tolerated - for example, the Russian 406/50 claims 300 rounds firing a 1108 kg shell at 830mps. This seems dubious, but also entails a velocity drop of 10%. 150 rounds gave 4.5%. So after 150 rounds it would be reduced to 792mps, and 747mps after 300 - both major drops. Overall, I would consider 140 rounds for the 381/50. The French 380/45 meanwhile had a life of 200 rounds, the German 380/47 had 240 rounds, the American 16"/50 Mk.7 had 290 rounds, the Mk.5 320 rounds, while the Mk.6 an excellent 395 rounds. The British 16"/45 Mk.I was anywhere from 200-250 rounds. The dispersion of the French guns was certainly heavily influenced by the mountings of two 'twins' per turret, the twins being only 195cm apart and the two groups 295cm apart (Littorio's guns were all 264cm apart, with Nelson's at 249cm, The Mk.6 at 297cm, and the Mk.7 310cm). In 1945 while in the Indian Ocean Richelieu did some test shoots. Firing between the ranges of 16 and 25 km (I have no clue why the given range is given over such a large variantion), with one half-turret she was recording dispersion of 450m. At the same range the British QE's figure was 250m. Eight shots were then fired with a single gun, and values of 270m were recorded (60% of the half-turret value). There were also shoots from 1947 (before delay could were installed) that saw values in excess of a kilometer - A May shoot saw 1500m at 16.0 km, June 1775m at 25.0 km, at 1460m at 20.4 km in November. Navweaps mentions tests in 1948 when delay coils (.06 sec) were fitted on the center gun of each pair, at a range of 26.5 km an average spread of 525m was achieved without the coils, and 300m with them - again a reduction to about 60% of what dispersion had been before. Considering that it seems that most of the dispersion seen by the French guns can be attiributed to the proximity of the guns in each half turret. The '45 shots seem to indicate that the dispersion was still greater than the British 15"/42, but that's hardly surprising as that weapon was generally considered to have excellent accuracy, and guns with greater velocity (and velocity retention) tend to have greater dispersion in range. Littorio's dispersion problems are far more vexing question as it's just not quite clear what caused them, and it also seems to greatly rely on anecdotal mentions. 267m at 20.0 km and 364m at 22.5 km are hardly spectacular, but nor are they awful. My best guess is that it had to do with propellent inconsistencies, which were exacerbated by the extreme velocities the guns operated at. One of the inherent issues of such a high velocity weapon was the unsuitability to poor weather, as rolling made it very hard to lay the guns accurately. Being off by .05625° (a thousandth) means your aim is off by 83.4 meters at an average range. Many people have claimed inconsistencies in the shells themselves, but I find this doubtful as numerous other guns had no such issue with inconsistent ammunition - for example, the hyper-accurate 152/55 (HE shells having a specific issue), or the 135mm guns. Propellent issues would make more sense - although I say this as conjecture based on facts available.
  14. german H series battleships

    True, and we've got Baltimore at 6 rpm, which is 50% faster than it was capable of at loading angle in reality, so it's not like RoF is really fixed - although usually there's less buffs when it comes to BB guns. But yeah, there was no way any of the H designs were ever going to make it above tier IX, not when their opponents would be Yamato and Montana - so the ability to up-gunning H39 was a pretty decent way of doing things